The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant was well aware of the fact that F, H or F, a stock company run by H or F, (hereinafter “F”), even if receiving a security deposit from the victim, would not be able to deliver the inside document to the victim; and (b) by deceiving the victim without the intent to deliver the document in accordance with the promise to deliver it, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired it by deceiving the victim under the name of the security deposit.

First of all, the Defendant asserted that “the amount agreed to be paid by the victim to H was KRW 100 million. In the event of payment of KRW 100 million, H, which is part of it, was used for the repayment of its obligation to the Defendant, and KRW 40 million, was paid to K as a security deposit for securing the internal storage for delivery, and the remainder of KRW 20 million was expected to be used as other operating funds. However, the Defendant asserted that “The victim did not secure raw materials as planned by H because he did not pay the remainder of the agreed deposit with KRW 40 million and did not pay the remainder.”

However, the victim heard through J that 10 million won is required as a security deposit from the defendant or H to make a transaction on the condition that it is not possible to make a transaction on that condition, and thereafter, 40 million won was transferred first to H as security deposit was adjusted to 50 million won.

However, after that, the defendant again demanded 100 million won as to the defect that the victim tried to prepare a contract, and the collateral was demanded, but H refused this and the contract was reversed.

In short, the defendant is entirely different from the defendant's assertion or the process of destroying the contract surrounding the process of determining the amount of deposit or the process of destroying the contract.